{"id":81902,"date":"2022-04-21T13:35:00","date_gmt":"2022-04-21T17:35:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/newsroom.carleton.ca\/?post_type=cu_story&p=81902"},"modified":"2025-08-19T09:37:10","modified_gmt":"2025-08-19T13:37:10","slug":"climate-critical-building-peace","status":"publish","type":"cu_story","link":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/news\/story\/climate-critical-building-peace\/","title":{"rendered":"Climate may not directly drive conflict but it’s critical for building peace"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n
\n\n
<\/div>\n \n
\n
\n\n

\n Climate may not directly drive conflict but it's critical for building peace\n <\/h1>\n \n <\/header>\n <\/div>\n\n \n <\/path>\n <\/path>\n <\/svg>\n <\/div>\n\n \n\n <\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n

This article is republished<\/a> from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. All photos provided by The Conversation<\/a> from various sources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Climate change isn\u2019t a direct driver of conflict. Most scientists agree on this and it\u2019s reflected in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group II Report<\/a>. There isn\u2019t a straight line between climate-related risks and conflict-related outcomes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The report<\/a> compares the impacts of climate change with those of other global trends. The latter include \u201cbiodiversity loss, overall unsustainable consumption of natural resources, land and ecosystem degradation, rapid urbanisation, human demographic shifts, social and economic inequalities and a pandemic\u201d. It finds<\/a> that:<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\n

Compared to other socioeconomic factors the influence of climate on conflict is assessed as relatively weak. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

But the Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability<\/a> report does acknowledge the relationship between climate and human security, which has been a matter of debate<\/a> among researchers and policy makers. And it provides insights about how climate can, under certain conditions, amplify security risks, with implications for lasting peace. For example, the report\u2019s summary for policymakers<\/a> emphasises that interaction between climatic and non-climatic factors will result in:<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\n

compounding overall risk and risks cascading across sectors and regions.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

For people affected by overlapping crises, the complex relationship between factors is all too real. It\u2019s their lived experience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We have seen this in our work at the Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers (CGIAR<\/a>). CGIAR is a global research partnership, focusing on enhancing food and nutrition security, poverty reduction and improving natural resources. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conflicts over resources<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

According to the climate change panel\u2019s report, up to 3.6 billion people<\/a> live in areas vulnerable to climate risks. These areas are concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, Latin America, and the Small Island Developing States<\/a>. They\u2019re also associated with governance challenges, poverty, limited and unequal access to critical resources, violent conflict, and dependence on climate-sensitive livelihoods. Historical and continuing injustice is another common feature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Together, these factors make people vulnerable to multiple risks, and set \u201ctraps\u201d that can last for generations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Climate-related risks cross boundaries too. They operate<\/a> through supply chains, markets and resource flows. They affect multiple sectors including water, energy and food.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Climate shocks and stresses \u2013 extreme and variable rainfall, floods, droughts, heat stress \u2013 cause substantial losses in food production. These shocks affect food security<\/a>. It\u2019s also expected that heat stress<\/a> will have a negative impact on working hours and labour productivity. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Household well-being is then at risk because of higher food prices and reduced household incomes. These effects cascade into health risks like malnutrition and even death. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Any effort to understand and break these vicious cycles also needs to take account of power and inequality. Burdens and benefits are not equally distributed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The climate panel report acknowledges<\/a> that even actions that are intended to reduce risks can have adverse consequences that magnify inequity and marginalise people. For example poor land use and poor planning and development, especially in areas with insecure land tenure, can undermine ecosystems and livelihoods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Recognising and integrating diverse forms of knowledge \u2013 indigenous, local and scientific \u2013 can be key for planning relevant interventions. Lasting solutions will include different actors and sectors. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Inclusive planning tends to create flexibility and \u201clow regrets<\/a>\u201d options, such as natural area conservation and ecosystem-based adaptation. These options can help promote peace over the long run by building trust and reducing risks of conflicts over resources. It\u2019s helpful to base approaches on people\u2019s rights when planning and financing risk reduction and adaptation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n